***The speed of light is 300,000 km per second. You will see miles. The point is irrelevant, as the argument says both are possible.

In a complete vacuum, with only light existing, the light effectively would be measured only against itself as all speed is an observation of relation. The problem is that as the "only thing" existing in the vacuum the light would exist ad-infinitum through itself and any measurement of speed would imply one portion of the light particle wave is faster than the other part, hence multiple speeds would occurs simultaneously.

The problem occurs, that movement implies a degree of vacuum already, and a perfect vacuum would not allow any movement what so ever because there would be no where to move.

Light, as one directional, would effectively have to invert to another direction if it is to progress anywhere. This is considering light must move somewhere in a void, but as it is a a void there is no where for it to move; hence it has to project past itself.

In projecting past itself, it must project in another direction. Light is now divided into 2 directions when beginning with the premise it starts as 1 projective direction.

A. These 2 directions of light, progressing from 1 direction, still maintains light as projecting in one direction through time and the process repeats.

B. Secondly moving from 1 to 2 directions necessitates light effectively halves itself prior to the first direction it exists through. Considering 1 direction exists, then 2 directions these two directions as now existing exist in and of themselves. Light effectively divides in half relative to a prior starting point, however double itself relative to its current state as two directions.

C. This process of light simultaneously dividing relative to a prior starting point, and multiplying relative to its current state, observes light as its own system of measurement. This continual "individuation" observes that as the light multiplies, relative to its original state it is a fractal approaching point zero.

D. The current foundation of light, as projecting in one direction, observes it as an infinite standard always manifesting itself through the individuation of light into further directions. Simultaneously, as this process of individuation occurs in time, light as projecting towards a point 0 is synonymous to 1 as manifesting a line of fractions as it approaches point 0. Each of these fractions, whether viewed as a number or linear particle of light, however is a whole number or multiple directions.

E. Light as ever fractating through time, is light simultaneously multiplying itself. Light sets its own standard of speed in a void, and any percieved "speed" is strictly one unit of light being composed of or composing further units of light.

300,000 mps observes light as the foundation for the second, in the void, as a series of oscillations relative to another fix point of light. Miles is strictly a length of space respectively considering the length of a mile, exists through the light projecting.

Hence in a void, light is a length. This length, a mile in this case, is a fraction of the original length of light (infinite) where this infinite length is divided into a series of units.

The seconds is effectively light revolving around a fix position, under a light only in a void interpretation. 1 second is the amount of time a point cycles from A to A again. These movements of A to A exist as a series of degrees. These degrees are the breakdown of one cycle of light into multiple parts.

So the "Mile" as "length" and the second as a cycle (which in turn exists as a length) observes miles per second as the number of lengths light multiplies itself within a given length. It is a ratio of one length to another, with light being the set standard.

To argue that light is 300,000 mps is to argue it exists as a ratio of 300,000 lengths to one length where both the mile and second are lengths.

Inversely, with the speed of light, as the only variable in the void. Each second is equivalent to 1/300,000 of a mile and the second is actually a length of space.

The problem occurs that as light being the standard projective length as 1 directional in the void, it is infinite and a regress occurs considering this 1 unit by continually individuating into further directions, exists through infinite units. In simpler terms light as projecting in one direction continually fractates into further lengths of light so that the original 1 direction of light is composed of infinite lengths of light, which all on there own terms exist through the same process.

Electrons and protons are particles within atoms and are entirely separate from photons which exist independently of them
There are however different frequencies existing across the electromagnetic spectrum ranging from ultra violet to infra red

Not necessarily considering all frameworks used to measure...well anything...not just light...contains protons and electrons.

You cannot separate a variable from another variable without applying that eliminated variable in some other way.

nonesence.

Of course it is...you "nonesence" to you, you can't even spell "nonsence"...lol, drunk idiot...rofl.

surreptitious57 wrote:
Were the Universe an almost perfect vacuum with only a single photon within it the speed of light could not be measured
But this would not be a problem as there would be nothing else to observe it and so it would be completely undetectable
But given that a photon can not experience time the one in question would travel the Universe in precisely no time at all

all matter regardless of its speed ( always lower than that of light ) experience time
light / radio / x ray / etc ............ i e energy travels light speed and experiences no time

I never mentioned matter and you repeated what I said about light not experiencing time so why post this

surreptitious57 wrote:
Were the Universe an almost perfect vacuum with only a single photon within it the speed of light could not be measured
But this would not be a problem as there would be nothing else to observe it and so it would be completely undetectable
But given that a photon can not experience time the one in question would travel the Universe in precisely no time at all

all matter regardless of its speed ( always lower than that of light ) experience time
light / radio / x ray / etc ............ i e energy travels light speed and experiences no time

I never mentioned matter and you repeated what I said about light not experiencing time so why post this

So what your are really doing is strictly saying a word salad is your innate inability to read, this in light of the fact there are people who understand the argument presented...so it is not me pushing a word salad.

Quite frankly, after dealing with the variety of wonderful personalities online and in real life, given the opportunity for a thesis I believe a suitable topic would be the introduction of the moral necessities of micro chipping people and promoting technology that controls people's thoughts.

People are straw dogs, wailing and screaming over a million causes in there plagued minds. This forum, as well as the internet, is excellent proof of not just how pathetic and worthless the human condition is, but how helpless most people are.

The suitable solution would be if we put down our cell phones, men starting taking responsibility for there actions/families/state, etc. Just standard "manning up". Women respectively in there own manner of course.

But this simple solution will not be put into effect for a variety of reasons.

People should be treated like cattle...the more I work on this "project" (which is intended in the long run for a thesis) the more I realized how not valuable human life really is. And this is not an elitist socratic stance, where some people inherently are better reasoning than others, but all of mankind.

I was never raised, or even born this way, but after years of dealing with people (and I am not even 30 yet) the human condition is of no value. There truly is nothing valuable or good in it worth saving and what we conduce as a "will to live" or "strength" in neitzchian terms is strictly a bullshit way of saying "habit".

Men and women are worthless and should be herded like cattle. It is want they want, freedom of choice is too much of a burden they don't want.

If the vacuum is not absolute, then the speed of light is not absolute.

If the vacuum is nearly absolute then the measurement is nearly perfect. I believe it is near enough perfect to introduce no discernable error in the measurement. I might be wrong, but you haven't begun to even address that point let alone provide a convincing case. (for more on this, see here: https://physics.stackexchange.com/quest ... ts-tell-us )

If ... electromagnetism exists and forms the movement of light ...

You seem to be casting doubt on electromagnetism. Light is electromagnetism.

If the vacuum is not absolute, then the speed of light is not absolute.

If the vacuum is nearly absolute then the measurement is nearly perfect. I believe it is near enough perfect to introduce no discernable error in the measurement. I might be wrong, but you haven't begun to even address that point let alone provide a convincing case. (for more on this, see here: https://physics.stackexchange.com/quest ... ts-tell-us )

If ... electromagnetism exists and forms the movement of light ...

You seem to be casting doubt on electromagnetism. Light is electromagnetism.

If light is electromagnetism, and we use electromagnetism as the framework for determining an accurate measurement of light, then the framework is self-referencing. What you need to understand is that the experiment is flawed because it necessitates a form of self-referencing, leading us to quantum entanglement in one respect, while the experiment never really took place. Light in a perfect vacuum and light as "x" in a "near perfect" vacuum are two different things entirely.

1) Relative to the "accuracy", .1 contains .01, .001., .0001, .00001 to infinity when observing a distance between .1 and 0. The issue of "perfection" if off by a mere fraction results in infinite variation.

With light as the "only" framework in a vaccuum, a 100% accuracy rate is inevitable, thus necessitating light as the property which not just maintains itself but acts as its own standard of measurement. Speed effectively equivocates one measurement of light to another, necessitating light as having infinite properties when set as the foundational measurement. The reason I say "infinite properties" is that light as the standard, against which it maintains itself, necessitates "light" as the unified boundary of movement with any "movement" of light being a localized fraction of itself.

Light may be "x" units of speed, but this speed is strictly a ratio of movements against an unchanging boundary itself...both of which the moving and unmoving are light. Light is instantaneous in these regards, and any "movement" is strictly a localized state of being.

2) High precision is merely the observation between one framework (the experiment) and another framework (the experiment or hypothesis) as having a high level of symmetry.

The nature of similarity acts as a connective median between the empirical and the empirical and/or idea. However any differential is subject to the above .1 and 0 example which accounts for variation between the two given a long enough timeline.

3) Empirical experiments, while relying on abstract mathematics, contains an inherent form of probablism in the nature of understanding any finite reality because its dependence on time takes into account potential change.

The assumption of the speed of light, in special relativity, necessitates it as a variable in the respect it is both an assumption (and as an assumption is not a constant) and a premise axiom (all axioms are variables when relating are defined by the framework of interpretation which extends from them).

1) You are incapable of explaining your ideas intelligibly (in English at least).
2) Whatever it is you know a lot about, it isn't Physics.

So what if I am arrogant, what are you going to do about it but bitch.

If I say "well, I understand my argument may be a little complex, so if you need me to clarify something it is my fault not yours"...I will still be accused of being arrogant.

It is a lose, lose for me...so go fuck yourself fruitcake, I will do what I will.

First of all intelligbility is a relative term, it is probabilistic due to it empirical nature. Your arguments contradict themselves at multiple levels.

Second, your arguments are just copy and paste, hence a fallacy of authority as it is a reference to a community as an primary role in determining truth.

Third:

A theoretical pure vacuum is not physics...because there is no empirical evidence for it. It is the realm of metaphysics, something I have studied for years...we all have whether we admit to it or not.

Actually they are expressed...what don't you understand about the simple sentence: "If light exists in a pure vacuum, only light exists, hence it is a self referencing unified frame of measurement observing both a speed of infinity and, if localized, infinite speeds."

In simpler terms:
If only light exists in a pure vacuum, then how can it have speed if it is completely unified?

So what your are really doing is strictly saying a word salad is your innate inability to read, this in light of the fact there are people who understand the argument presented...so it is not me pushing a word salad.

So what your are really doing is strictly saying a word salad is your innate inability to read, this in light of the fact there are people who understand the argument presented...so it is not me pushing a word salad.

Gaffo... if you need someone to hold your hand and tell you "it will be alright"..."jesus loves you"...get the fuck out. Join the argument or shut up. I dont give a fuck if you or anyone else thinks I am wise or a fool. Argument, or get the fuck out.

The argument is real simple.

There is 1 variable in the void. Nothing else. If the void is in another framework, then the variable is as well.

If the vacuum is not absolute, then the speed of light is not absolute.

If the vacuum is nearly absolute then the measurement is nearly perfect. I believe it is near enough perfect to introduce no discernable error in the measurement. I might be wrong, but you haven't begun to even address that point let alone provide a convincing case. (for more on this, see here: https://physics.stackexchange.com/quest ... ts-tell-us )

If ... electromagnetism exists and forms the movement of light ...

You seem to be casting doubt on electromagnetism. Light is electromagnetism.

If light is electromagnetism, and we use electromagnetism as the framework for determining an accurate measurement of light, then the framework is self-referencing. What you need to understand is that the experiment is flawed because it necessitates a form of self-referencing, leading us to quantum entanglement in one respect, while the experiment never really took place. Light in a perfect vacuum and light as "x" in a "near perfect" vacuum are two different things entirely.

1) Relative to the "accuracy", .1 contains .01, .001., .0001, .00001 to infinity when observing a distance between .1 and 0. The issue of "perfection" if off by a mere fraction results in infinite variation.

With light as the "only" framework in a vaccuum, a 100% accuracy rate is inevitable,

snipped the rest

light travails at light speed - and slower in in the real world - through solids.

and yet does not experience "Time".

you point? do you have knowledge of Phyisics?

if so - outside of insulting me - clarify that knowlede to me and others here.

..................and do you have a point to make? - outside of insulting me. I do have some rudementary knowlelge of Physics .
do you?

make your point without invective if you are able so we and others in this thread can discuss.

So what your are really doing is strictly saying a word salad is your innate inability to read, this in light of the fact there are people who understand the argument presented...so it is not me pushing a word salad.

Gaffo... if you need someone to hold your hand and tell you "it will be alright"..."jesus loves you"...get the fuck out. Join the argument or shut up. I dont give a fuck if you or anyone else thinks I am wise or a fool. Argument, or get the fuck out.

The argument is real simple.

There is 1 variable in the void. Nothing else. If the void is in another framework, then the variable is as well.

Hence we have a basic 1...inside a 0.

1 variable and nothing else, it is stuck as self referencing.

stop being an asshole, i noted value your mind in general (outside of your word salads as times) - do you have a Physics degree? (I don't either but had education of the fundementals - have you? - not into degree elitism, but affirm others that know more than have qualification)

do you? you value invective to me over knowledge others more qualified than either of us?

You are pissing me off....................do you have anything more worthy then invective toward me or not? if not, I'll ingore anything you post henseforth.